Even in that context, it's an absurd debating point. Pat seems to think that if Hitler had just been left alone, he wouldn't have attacked France. Which IMO is complete nonsense.
What was WWII about? Like all wars, it became something much different than what it was when the conflict started. And although I don't think much of FDR, I'm not sure what he could have done differently regarding the Soviet Union's occupation of central and eastern Europe after the war - unless he would have waged war with the Soviets after Hitler's fall - something I doubt the American people would have supported.
If Hitler had been left alone, he probably wouldn't have had any reason to attack France.
One of the untold stories of World War II was that the United States actually "liberated" France from the Nazis. The reality is that a substantial portion of the French population was perfectly content to live under the influence of the Third Reich -- particularly in light of the strong Marxist influence in France in the 1930s.
The Blum government in France, in fact, was cobbled together in 1936 under the Socialist, Communist, and Radical Socialist parties -- and during much of the next ten years France was essentially in a state of a quiet civil war. Leon Blum himself was imprisoned by the Vichy government for the duration of World War II.
"I'm not sure what he could have done differently regarding the Soviet Union's occupation of central and eastern Europe after the war - unless he would have waged war with the Soviets after Hitler's fall<
Pat say's roosevelt could have handled it by making Stalin give up claim to all the countries he and Hitler divied up before we sent all the armament to him.roosevelt was rolled with the help of Alger Hiss way before Yalta.